Leovanny Villasmil Ojeda entered the United States at the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas on August 25, 2024, without valid travel documents. DHS issued him a Notice to Appear charging inadmissibility, then paroled him into the country for two years under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). He obtained employment authorization and filed a pending asylum application. ICE arrested him on March 1, 2026, without prior notice of any parole revocation. Ten days later — after he was already detained — DHS sent him a letter stating his parole had ended on April 18, 2025, citing two January 20, 2025 Presidential Proclamations on border security and stating that detention during removal proceedings was appropriate.
Judge Robert J. Jonker of the Western District of Michigan granted Villasmil Ojeda's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and ordered his release, subject to the conditions that existed under his original parole. The court also enjoined respondents from re-detaining him absent a material change in circumstances unless due process requirements are satisfied.
On the statutory and regulatory question, the court held that 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i) requires written notice to the individual and a determination that neither humanitarian reasons nor public benefit warrants continued presence before parole may be terminated. Because Villasmil Ojeda's asylum application remained pending at the time of his arrest, the court concluded the purpose of his parole had not been accomplished. The court also held that the April 2025 blanket parole termination did not constitute the case-by-case assessment the statute and regulation require. In reaching that conclusion, the court cited decisions from district courts in Oregon, California, New York, and Minnesota, as well as the decision in Rodriguez Martinez v. Raycraft from this district. The court incorporated by reference its exhaustion and merits analysis from its own prior decisions in Caceres Martinez v. Raycraft, Nazari v. Raycraft, Delgado Vilchez v. Warden, and Ramirez Gonzalez v. Department of Homeland Security.
The court acknowledged a contrary First Circuit ruling in Doe v. Noem, which reversed a district court's preliminary relief after holding that plaintiffs had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in showing that the statute requires individualized terminations of program-based parole grants. Judge Jonker held that case distinguishable for the same reasons articulated in his prior Western District of Michigan decisions. The court also noted recent Fifth Circuit and Eighth Circuit decisions — Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Avila v. Bondi — but concluded they did not change the analysis.
On due process, the court held that Villasmil Ojeda's detention independently violated the Fifth Amendment, incorporating by reference its constitutional analysis from the same series of prior Western District of Michigan cases. Respondents had argued that he received adequate process because he had notice of charges, access to counsel, and the ability to seek bond hearings, but the court rejected that framing.
The court ordered respondents to file a status report within three days certifying compliance, and dismissed the United States Attorney General as a respondent while retaining the Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the Secretary of Homeland Security.